5.  The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Bolshoy Kamen, a town in the Primorye Region.
6.  On 17 February 2005 criminal proceedings were brought against the applicant on suspicion of fraud. On the same day the applicant was arrested.
7.  On 19 February 2005 the Frunzenskiy District Court of Vladivostok ordered that the applicant should be detained on remand. The court held as follows:
“In the court’s view, the non-use of a custodial measure in respect of an applicant who has committed a serious crime can entail the applicant’s fleeing from the pre-trial investigation and the trial, and hampering the identification and subsequent arrest of those involved in the crime.”
8.  The applicant was placed in detention facility IZ-25/1 of Vladivostok.
9.  The applicant appealed, claiming, in particular, that the Frunzenskiy District Court had not taken into consideration his advanced age and state of health (the applicant was suffering from ischemic heart disease necessitating regular medical supervision). The applicant further alleged that the District Court had no territorial jurisdiction over his case, and, therefore, could not decide on the issue of his detention. He further insisted that the custodial measure should be changed to bail.
10.  Meanwhile, on 5 March 2005 another set of criminal proceedings was brought against the applicant on suspicion of fraud. On the same date the two sets of proceedings were joined under no. 512.
11.  On 15 March 2005 the Primorye Regional Court upheld the decision of 19 February 2005 on appeal, having taken into consideration the gravity of the charges against the applicant. The court found no violation of the rules of territorial jurisdiction. It held that pursuant to Article 108 § 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure a request for application of a custodial measure could be examined by a court having territorial jurisdiction over the prosecutor’s office investigating the case.
12.  On 13 April, 17 June and 12 August 2005 the Frunzenskiy District Court of Vladivostok extended the applicant’s detention until 17 June, 17 August and 17 September 2005 respectively. On each occasion the court held as follows:
“As established, the applicant is charged with a serious crime, and the court considers that, if released, he may reoffend, threaten witnesses and other participants in the criminal proceedings, destroy evidence, or otherwise obstruct the administration of justice.”
13.  On 11 May, 21 July and 29 August 2005 respectively the Primorye Regional Court upheld the above-mentioned extension orders on appeal.
14.  On 20 July 2005 the pre-trial investigation was completed; on 2 September 2005 the indictment was approved by the Deputy Prosecutor of the Primorye Region, and on 5 September 2005 the case was submitted to the Shkotovskiy District Court of the Primorye Region for trial.
15.  On 15 September 2005 the Shkotovskiy District Court held a preliminary hearing and extended the applicant’s detention until 17 November 2005. The court held as follows:
“The court does not see any reason for granting the request filed by the [applicant’s] defence for the custodial measure to be changed to an undertaking not to leave the [applicant’s] place of residence.
In deciding on this issue the court takes into account the fact that [the applicant] is charged with having committed serious crimes, which, pursuant to Article 108 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, serves as one of the grounds for application of a custodial measure.
Moreover, in the court’s opinion, if at large, [the applicant] may obstruct the establishment of the truth in the case. Such a risk stems from the statements of the victim Ye., who submitted at the preliminary hearing that during the pre-trial investigation [the applicant’s] [relatives], on his instructions, had attempted to persuade her to change her statements to the applicant’s advantage ...”
16.  During the preliminary hearing the prosecution challenged the judge’s impartiality. The judge withdrew from the case, and the case file was transferred to the Primorye Regional Court.
17.  The applicant appealed against the extension of his detention to 17 November 2005. He argued that the District Court had not considered the possibility of applying to him a more lenient preventive measure. The applicant further relied on his heart condition and the fact that the pre-trial investigation had already been completed.
18.  On 27 October 2005 the Primorye Regional Court transferred the case to the Fokino Town Court of the Primorye Region. On the same day the Regional Court upheld on appeal the decision of 15 September 2005 to extend the applicant’s detention until 17 November 2005.
19.  On 15 November 2005 the Fokino Town Court extended the applicant’s detention until the pronouncement of the judgment on the applicant’s criminal case, provided that period did not exceed six months, that is, until 8 March 2006. The court held as follows:
“At the present time [there are] no lawful grounds for lifting or altering the custodial measure. The applicant is charged with two crimes, one of which is a serious crime ... There are grounds to believe that, if at large, the applicant might obstruct the establishment of the truth in the case as he has been exerting pressure on the victim, Ye., with the purpose of persuading [the latter] to alter her statements to [his] advantage – this circumstance was mentioned by the victim herself.
There is no medical evidence preventing [the applicant] from being detained in custody. On the contrary, the case file contains a medical certificate ... dated 8 August 2005 to the effect that [the applicant’s] state of health allows him to be detained in a detention facility and participate in investigative actions”.
20.  On 27 December 2005 the Primorye Regional Court upheld the above decision on appeal.
21.  On 17 February 2006 the Fokino Town Court convicted the applicant of fraud and attempted fraud. The applicant was given a suspended sentence of four years’ imprisonment, conditional on three years’ probation. The applicant was released in the courtroom.
22.  On 10 April 2006 the Primorye Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.